Author Topic: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers  (Read 33696 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kaelik

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2008, 05:39:13 PM »
As for the Stonewarden blab that started this whole thing off... The debate is now officially over.  For people who make the "FAQ can't change rules!" argument, the entire problem was that there were no rules in the first place!  Now there are.

The FAQ can't make up rules that didn't exist either.

Next FAQ entry: Is a Monks wisdom bonus subject to the max dex bonus of full plate even though he is not wearing it? Yes, of course it is.

See, didn't change any rules, just made up new ones.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2008, 04:10:59 AM »
As for the Stonewarden blab that started this whole thing off... The debate is now officially over.  For people who make the "FAQ can't change rules!" argument, the entire problem was that there were no rules in the first place!  Now there are.

The FAQ can't make up rules that didn't exist either.

Next FAQ entry: Is a Monks wisdom bonus subject to the max dex bonus of full plate even though he is not wearing it? Yes, of course it is.

See, didn't change any rules, just made up new ones.
The way I see it, anyone looking to continue this fight is just looking to bitch about something aimlessly.  In the beginning, the argument was about two opposing interpretations of the same rule.  FAQ settles differing interpretations of the same rule, as stated by EjoThims...
Errata is a change to the RaW, FaQ is a clarification of how to handle RaI or a clarification of RaW that can be read multiple ways.
There were people reading the ability in different ways, therefore the FAQ has standing to settle the issue.

Your analogy, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2008, 09:42:31 AM »
There were people reading the ability in different ways, therefore the FAQ has standing to settle the issue.

Right and wrong.

Firstly, the actual, strict RaW cannot, in the specific circumstance, mean more than one thing (if you'd like a reminder why, PM me please, I don't want to sidetrack this thread too much), so there is nothing to clarify from that angle.

At best, then, the FaQ entry (assuming it still had the same goal) could only (legitimately) be a RaI or houserule entry, even if it only specifically handled Deepwarden.

However, the FaQ entry instead addresses Max Dex bonuses in general, and blatantly contradicts the RaW (which again, remember, it has no power to change) without actually noting itself as a RaI/suggestion note.

This is very bad form for the FAQ.  :nonono

Just because someone reads or hears something doesn't mean that's what is actually said or written.

I could, for example, choose to read in your words all kinds of obtuse, racist propaganda, but that wouldn't in any way make you a racist.

Now, there are some items that even by the strictest Raw reading of both the item and all entries and articles related to it can equally support two contradictory positions. There are also those times where the RaW allows for something that doesn't seem like it would be the intended use. This is when clarification steps in, not ever changing the rules, but showing that of the two equally (key word here) supported outcomes is 'official' and to say that 'Yes, that works this way, even though it seems it shouldn't, because of X.'

I just wish the various Sages had better understood their roles, and that more of them were actually correct in their assessments of what the rules really state. Sure, it's good to know what the 'official' stance on suggested houserules are, or even what the writers wanted something to mean, but that really means exactly 0 if neither are actually supported by the rules.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2008, 06:31:24 PM »
Now, there are some items that even by the strictest Raw reading of both the item and all entries and articles related to it can equally support two contradictory positions. There are also those times where the RaW allows for something that doesn't seem like it would be the intended use. This is when clarification steps in, not ever changing the rules, but showing that of the two equally (key word here) supported outcomes is 'official' and to say that 'Yes, that works this way, even though it seems it shouldn't, because of X.'
This is what happened with the Stonewarden ability.  It can be understood to mean 1) you don't have Dex to AC anymore, you just add Con to AC and, since it's not Dex, it's not limited by armor or 2) your usual Dex to AC bonus is being powered by Con instead, and since it's essentially the same bonus the same limit on it applies.

Frankly, in this case they were both equally unsupported by the rules.  I do disagree with the answer in the FAQ being such a blanket response, but at least this specific issue is resolved.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2008, 09:15:17 AM »
Quote from: EjoThims
{PM}
Open response to a private message, because at least 90% of it should be heard by a lot of people IMO.

Normally you have a Dex bonus and Armor with a maximum bonus allowed by your armor.  The RAW only changes that the bonus is from Con instead of Dex, it doesn't change that this bonus is limited by your armor.

You're not convincing me that my argument is no less viable than yours, because you're citing the exact same evidence to support your position as I am to support mine.  That's the best example possible of unclear RAW.  Given that, the Sage has the right to rule on it.

Further, I'm tired of Sage bashing that constantly goes on.  I see a lot of people that argue in favor of the sage in one place and then call them a retard in another because they're describing different rulings made by the sage, one they agree with and one they don't.  It's really a wonderful feeling I get when one of these guys starts up an argument with me and argues for/against the sage and then I quote back their own words directly contradicting their argument with me.  It's like that feeling you get when you watch some guy you don't particularly like a lot start pissing in an open field when a gust of wind comes up and blows his piss all over his face.  It's absolutely sadistic, but it encourages a put up or shut up mentality among people that can only dramatically decrease the number of e-tarded things spoken in the world, which then leads to reduced haterade, which then contributes to a virtual-world peace where discussion is civilized and intelligent and lolcats and orlies get much laughs because they're funny, not because someone else was a douchebag.

...then again, that's not gonna happen.  Why don't we just follow the Sage rulings because... you know... most of them are really not bad at all.  I understand that they *should* be making Errata, but how effective do you think they still are at that kinda stuff considering the sad state of ToB errata?

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2008, 10:06:02 PM »
Normally you have a Dex bonus and Armor with a maximum bonus allowed by your armor.  The RAW only changes that the bonus is from Con instead of Dex, it doesn't change that this bonus is limited by your armor.

I kept it to PMs because this has been gone over several times in other places and times, but I'll reiterate.

The ability in question clearly grants your Con bonus to AC. Max Dex only limits Dex bonus to AC.

Nowhere is the replacement of Dex score with Con score for purposes of Dex bonus mentioned, just the use of Con bonus in place of Dex bonus.

By the RaW, the ability gives you a Con bonus to AC, and this is not limited by Max Dex, as Max Dex only limits your Dex bonus.

There's really no two ways about it. Anything else is a RaI argument. The RaW on Max Dex are very clear in only mentioning Dex bonus, and the rules of the Deepwarden ability clearly grant a Con bonus, not a change to your Dex bonus.

Now, please, drop it or take it back to PMs.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2008, 01:12:16 AM »
Now, please, drop it or take it back to PMs.
This conversation is exactly what this thread is for.  You know, the Validity of the Sage's answers to questions in the D&D 3.5 FAQ?

The ability in question clearly grants your Con bonus to AC. Max Dex only limits Dex bonus to AC.

Nowhere is the replacement of Dex score with Con score for purposes of Dex bonus mentioned, just the use of Con bonus in place of Dex bonus.
To replace something can be defined as using something else in place of something else.  If you go with that definition then your argument also makes no sense, since you're essentially saying "You don't use your Con bonus in place of your Dex bonus, you use your Con bonus in place of your Dex bonus."

There's really no two ways about it. Anything else is a RaI argument. The RaW on Max Dex are very clear in only mentioning Dex bonus, and the rules of the Deepwarden ability clearly grant a Con bonus, not a change to your Dex bonus.
This is a strawman argument.  You're attacking the assertion that Con bonus is limited by Max Dex because that's how the rules should be, not my ACTUAL argument that the text is so utterly ambiguous that there isn't a rule to handle this situation in the first place.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2008, 08:12:14 AM »
To replace something can be defined as using something else in place of something else.  If you go with that definition then your argument also makes no sense, since you're essentially saying "You don't use your Con bonus in place of your Dex bonus, you use your Con bonus in place of your Dex bonus."

Wrong. Bonus =/= score. Read what I actually wrote, please.

This is a strawman argument.  You're attacking the assertion that Con bonus is limited by Max Dex because that's how the rules should be, not my ACTUAL argument that the text is so utterly ambiguous that there isn't a rule to handle this situation in the first place.

Wrong again. I'm saying that the text is not ambiguous at all.

Bonuses, not scores, are clearly what is talked about in the ability in question, and of the two bonuses, only one is limited by Max Dex.

There is no ambiguity.

There is nothing that falls within the FAQs power to clarify, with the ability, much less with Max Dex.

Chemus

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2008, 06:52:17 PM »
The real question I have is how much weight do we give the answers that are handed out in the FAQ?

About the Stone Warden ability, since it removes the Con bonus to AC whenever a Dex bonus would be removed, it makes measurable sense that it would be affected by Max Dex. You 'lose' part of your Dex bonus to AC. The ruling makes sense for that rule alone because of the wording of the rule. I think that the ability is nicely powered either way, and that erring on the side of caution (weaker power) is understandable.

I've mostly considered the Sage to be Rulings rather than Rules, personally, but it's not out of the realms of possibility to consider it as Rules.

P.S. I realize that I seemed to have a different stance earlier, but I was actually talking about the perceived change to the rules that the FAQ made. Plus giving an ability to a class that has heavy armor proficiency that has the potential to do nil is kinda silly. But there's always Mithral Heavy plate, or other bits.
*waves hand* This is not the sig you're looking for...
The freely downloadable and searchable 3.5 SRD I prefer (Web)
Camlen, Enniwey

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2008, 09:06:17 PM »
About the Stone Warden ability, since it removes the Con bonus to AC whenever a Dex bonus would be removed, it makes measurable sense that it would be affected by Max Dex.

It lists the times that Con bonus is denied alongside Dex. And the FAQ does present a wonderful suggestion for a houserule based on the intended power level of the ability.

But that's all it does. That's all it CAN do unless the actual pure text (including all relevant and related entries) points to multiple conclusions.

I've mostly considered the Sage to be Rulings rather than Rules, personally, but it's not out of the realms of possibility to consider it as Rules.

When it contradicts the rules in books, it is indeed out of the realm of possibility, as it's a lower tier source than the books themselves. And only errata can change a higher tier rule source.

Chemus

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2008, 12:33:40 AM »
I see your point that, as written, it is like the Monk's wisdom bonus to AC being lost when dexterity bonus would be lost, but without the clause of not being able to wear armor. The way I see it, the fact that they are tied together at all gives a space for the wedge of the ruling to work.

The answer in the FAQ does 'make' new rules, but if the FAQ is not primary material, then it can neither limit nor enhance any CO material; which assumes RAW, and a squid neutral DM ( ;) )

If any of the FAQ is valid for CO, then all of it is. The only other way I see is to make a list of 'house rules'/FAQ answers that we all agree are valid and necessary (Not. A. Chance. In. Hell.) This particular argument is a prime example of how that would turn out; some people decide that a particular bit of the FAQ is new rules, and others decide that it's a clarification. As new rules, it's unnecessary. As a clarification however, it's pithy and helpful.
*waves hand* This is not the sig you're looking for...
The freely downloadable and searchable 3.5 SRD I prefer (Web)
Camlen, Enniwey

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2008, 12:52:05 AM »
The answer in the FAQ does 'make' new rules, but if the FAQ is not primary material, then it can neither limit nor enhance any CO material; which assumes RAW, and a squid neutral DM ( ;) )

There are some true ambiguities though*, and the FAQ is a great source of recommended houserule material and for elaborating on tricks that work but weren't intended.

I personally just find it such a shame when the Sage can't himself tell the difference between the two.  :(

[spoiler]* Such as same name same ability different class abilities stacking or not, without the FAQ entry it's a judgement call whether the class source causes it to not fall under same name stacking clause; "Armor Bonus" vs "Monk's Armor Bonus" since it is referred to as both through the text.

Or whether or not Pierce Magical Protection applies to all AC granted by spells or only that directly granted by spells.[/spoiler]

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2008, 03:47:39 AM »
There is no ambiguity.
That's your perception, and your perception is as warped to me as mine is to you, hence FAQ rulings.

Kaelik

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2008, 04:22:56 AM »
Quote from: X-Codes
That's your perception, and your perception is as warped to me as mine is to you, hence FAQ rulings.

My perception is that characters with weapons are not allowed to attack with those weapons. Maybe we should have a FAQ entry to clarify that.

Having an opinion does not make that opinion valid.

PhoenixInferno

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2008, 05:00:41 AM »
Quote from: X-Codes
That's your perception, and your perception is as warped to me as mine is to you, hence FAQ rulings.

My perception is that characters with weapons are not allowed to attack with those weapons. Maybe we should have a FAQ entry to clarify that.

Having an opinion does not make that opinion valid.
There are opinions, and there are facts.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2008, 09:36:04 AM »
Quote from: X-Codes
That's your perception, and your perception is as warped to me as mine is to you, hence FAQ rulings.

My perception is that characters with weapons are not allowed to attack with those weapons. Maybe we should have a FAQ entry to clarify that.

Having an opinion does not make that opinion valid.
If you can't attack with weapons, then why bother playing D&D?  Don't tell me I've been doing it wrong this whole time!  :o

Kaelik

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2008, 04:34:16 PM »
There are opinions, and there are facts.

And the fact that Deepwarden Con bonus is in no way limited by armor as per the rules is opposed to the (incorrect) opinion that it is ambiguous.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2008, 02:21:12 AM »
And the fact that Deepwarden Con bonus is in no way limited by armor as per the rules is opposed to the (incorrect) opinion that it is ambiguous.
Why is it wrong?  Because you say so?

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2008, 02:30:10 AM »
Why is it wrong?  Because you say so?

I don't like repeating myself. But here it is just for you.

Because the ability grants you a Con bonus and Max Dex doesn't limit Con bonuses.

End of story.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: D&D 3.5 FAQ: Validity of Answers
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2008, 04:43:15 AM »
Because the ability grants you a Con bonus and Max Dex doesn't limit Con bonuses.

End of story.
I'll repeat myself as well.

I find your full argument to be simply warped.  As for the summary you listed here, it's a woefully inadequate assessment of the situation.